CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
E. Research Instruments
1. Instrument Blueprint
To earn the data related to the research problems, the researcher designed with indicator which have been decided. The instrument which will be used in this research is Oral test.
Table 7.
The Instument Blue Print
No. Variable Indicators
Form of Test
1 X
Different Phonetics
The student speak with good pronunciation and intonation from certain word
Oral Test
39
provided by the writer, example: Stationary.
Such as : Book, Pencil
2 Y
Students‟ Speaking Performance
a. Student can pronunce the dialog fluently b. Student can read the dialog by using correct
pronunciation
c. Student practice and perform in front of class with your partner.
d. Student can speak with good pronunciation e. Student can speak with good intonation
Oral Test
2. Instrument Calibration
a. The instruments which will be use on speaking performance is oral test.
Pre-test was given before the treatment in order to identify how far the students‟ level on speaking performance. Post-test was given after the treatment, in order to identify the improvement of the students‟ level on speaking performance. The writer uses oral test which the students present their idea in front of the class.
b. The instrument which will be use in observation method is observation guidance, as follows:
1). Observation the location sketch of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro
2). Observation the establishment of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro
40
3). Observation of the building of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro c. The instruments which will be used by documentation method is
documentation guidance, as follows:
1). Documentation about data students‟ speaking score of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro
2). Documentation about condition of teacher and officials in the SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro.
3). Documentation about the students of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro.
4). Documentation about the organization structure of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro
E. Data Analysis Technique
The researcher use simple statistical formula to comparing the result of the pre-test and post-test. The simplest of all indexes of variability is the range as follow 32 :
R= (Xh-Xt)+I Note: R = range
Xh = highest value in a distribution Xt = lowest value in a distribution I = interval width
The researcher analyze the data by using chi-square.this foemula to measure the normality distribution is as follow33
32 Donald Ary, et al., Introduction to, p. 114
41
𝑥2 = ( 𝑓0− 𝑓𝑒 )2 𝑓𝑒
x2 : value of chi-square 𝑓0 : observed frequency 𝑓𝑒 : expected frequency
The data will be analyzed by using T-test formula to know the significant and treatment effect.. The formula was illustrated as follows34:
𝑡 = D
D2−( D)2 N(N − 1)N
Note :
t : t value for correlation sample
𝐷 : different between pre-test and post-test D : the average from difference score D2 : square of D
N : total of participant
33Donald Ary, et al., Introduction to, p. 188.
34 Ibid .,p.177.
42
CHAPTER IV
RESULT OF THE RESEARCH
A. Description of Data 1. Research Setting
a. A Brief Historyof SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro
SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro is one of the State Vocational High Schools in Metro, was build in 1991. It is located on Khairbras II Ganjar Asri Street 12 14/IV West Metro. District and has various majors such as Engineering of Networking Computer, Electrical Engineering, Design Construction, Machine Engineering, Dressmaking, House Frame. It was build on the land area of +/- 1996 m2 with the following borders : North side bordering by SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro, South side bordering by SMK Muhammadiyah 1 Metro, East side bordering by SMK Negeri 2 Metro.
Since SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro was established, it has been lead by the following principles:
Table 9.
The Period of Leaderships of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro No. Name of Headmaster Period
1. Drs. Zaenizeni 1991-1995
2. Drs. Sukidzal 1995-1999
3. Drs. Sukamtono 1999-2004
4. Drs. Simin Efendi 2004-2010
43
5. Hi. Mushonif, S.P 2010-2015
6. Wihan Afriono, S.T, M.Pd 2015-Now b. The Buildings of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro
SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro has following buildings:
Table 10.
The Total Buildings of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro
No. Kind of Room Total
1. Classroom 32
2. Library 1
3. Headmaster Room 1
4. Computer Laboratory 1
5. Teachers Room 1
6. Administration Room 1
7. Guidance and Consul Room 1
8. Laboratory 1
9. Student council/Scouts Room 1
10. Store Room 1
11. School Medical Room 1
12. OSIS Room 1
13. Mosque 1
14. Cooperation Room 1
15. Counseling Room 1
16. Multimedia Room 1
17. Toilet for student 5
18. Toilet for teacher 3
19. Ceremony yard 1
20. Canteen 5
21. Parking Area 3
Sources : Observation Result In SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro on 08 September, 2017
44
c. The Conditions of Teacher and Official Employers in SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro
SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro has professional teachers and officers from various universities and also from various levels of edication. This is due to a better quality of the graduates of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro who need to attribute special skills in different majors. Therefore, selected teachers and officers are very helpful in teaching learning process.
The total of the teacher and official employers of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro was 65 that could be identified in table bellow :
Table 11.
Teachers Educational Background
SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro in The Academic Year 2016/2017
SMK/SMA D3 S1 S2
5 3 54 3
Sources : Documentation Result in SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro d. The Students’ Quantity of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In
Academic Year 2017/2018
The student‟s quantity of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro in the academic year 2017/2018 is 1.181 that can be identified as follows:
45
Table 12.
The Students’ Quantity of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro in the academic year 2016/2017
No. Class Total
1. X 472
2. XI 348
3. XII 361
Total 1.181
e. Structure Organization of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro The Organization Structure of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro in the academic year of 2017/2018 can be shown in the following figure:
46
KETUA KOMITE SEKOLAH Drs. AMINURDIN,M.Ag
DINAS PENDIDIKAN PIMPINAN CABANG MUHAMMADIYAH
MAJELIS PENDIDIKAN DASAR DAN MENENGAH Drs. Hi. TUKIMAN S.
KEPALA SEKOLAH
WIHAN AFRIONO, S.T.M,Pd KEPALA TATA USAHA
ISMARIAH, A.Ma
BENDAHARA BANTUAN SULISTIYO WIDODO
WAKA SARANA PRASARANA ASEP AKROMUDIN,S.Ag WAKA HUMAS
KATINO,S.Pd WAKA KESISWAAN
WAJIB,S.Ag WAKA KURIKULUM
Hi. MUSHONIF,S.P
KAJUR MESIN PRODUKSI HERI SETIAWAN
KAJUR MEKANIK OTOMOTIF ALI ROSAD,S.Pd
KAJUR KETENAGA LISTRIKAN SUDARNO,S.T
KAJUR TEK.
KOMPUTER JARINGAN AGUNG WIBOWO,S.Kom
WALI KELAS
SISWA
Figure 2.
The Structure Organization of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro
46
Figure 3.
Location Sketch of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro
U U
B T
S BENGKEL
TITL
RUANG KELAS
IPM
RUANG KELAS RUANG
KELAS
RUANG 22 RUANG
21 TANGGA
WC
RUANG 14 RUANG KELAS
RUANG BK
RUANG 20
PERPUSTAKAAN
RUANG KELAS RUANG 18
RUANG 17 RUANG 16
RUANG 15
BENGKEL MP
TANGGA MUSHOLA
RUANG GURU KANTOR RUANG TU LAB UKS
LAB
KOMPUTER RUANG 04
LAB TKJ RUANG
05 TANGGA
RUANG 09
RUANG 10
IPM
RUANG 01 RUANG 06 RUANG 11
RUANG 02 RUANG 07 RUANG 12
03 RUANG 08 RUANG 13 LAPANGAN
48 2. Research Data
a. Pre-test Result
The researcher measured the students speaking performance by using pre-test before giving treatment. The result of pre-test can be shown as follows:
Table 13.
Pre-test result
No Students' Name Pre-Test
1 AIP 73
2 ARS 30
3 BS 34
4 BWP 54
5 CKD 71
6 DKH 34
7 DMKW 55
8 DA 30
9 DMR 39
10 DRP 22
11 FA 56
12 FEA 57
13 FP 34
14 FM 57
15 GS 35
16 IAW 49
17 LN 49
18 NY 49
19 NPW 29
20 NL 49
21 PL 51
22 RBS 22
23 REAP 38
24 RA 57
25 RNDC 34
26 RIAP 57
49
27 RRD 69
28 SK 54
29 VOF 49
30 VYS 34
Total 1371
The Highest Score 73 The Lowest Score 22
Average 46
Based on the table above, the researcher then measured the class using Donald Ary formulation as follows:
R= (Xh-Xt)+I Note: R = range
Xh = highest value in a distribution Xt = lowest value in a distribution I = interval width
R= (Xh-Xt)+1 R= (73-22)+1
R= 52
K= 1 + 3,3 log n K= 1 + 3,3 log 30 K= 1 + 3,3 x 1.48 K= 1 + 4,9 K= 5,9 = 6 P= R
K
50 P= 52
6= 8,7 (So, the total class interval of pretest is 9).
Table 14.
Frequency Pre-Test
No. students‟ score Frequency Percentage
1 67-75 3 students 10%
2 58-66 0 student 0%
3 49-57 14 students 46,67%
4 40-48 0 student 0%
5 31-39 8 students 26,67%
6 22-30 5 students 16,67%
Total 30 students 100%
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that for score 22-30, the total of students was 5 students. The students that included for score 31-39 was 8 students. Then, the students that included for score 40-48 was 0 student. Next, the students that included for score 49-57 was 14 students. Last but not least, the students that included for score 58-66 was 0 student. The last, the students that included for score 67-75 was 3 students.
51 b. Post-test Result
The researcher measured the students‟ speaking performance by using post-test after giving treatment. The result of post-test can be shown as follows:
Table 15.
Post-test result
No Students' Name Post-Test
1 AIP 89
2 ARS 70
3 BS 61
4 BWP 72
5 CKD 85
6 DKH 80
7 DMKW 80
8 DA 74
9 DMR 83
10 DRP 54
11 FA 83
12 FEA 85
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
67-75 58-66 49-57 40-48 31-39 22-30
Total 3 0 14 0 8 5
Percentage 10% 0% 46,670% 0% 26,670% 16,670%
Chart 1
.
52
13 FP 74
14 FM 80
15 GS 82
16 IAW 72
17 LN 70
18 NY 72
19 NPW 60
20 NL 69
21 PL 80
22 RBS 54
23 REAP 81
24 RA 80
25 RNDC 74
26 RIAP 80
27 RRD 87
28 SK 85
29 VOF 70
30 VYS 60
Total 2246
The Highest Score 89 The Lowest Score 54
Average 75
R= (Xh-Xt)+1 R= (89-54)+1 R= 36
K= 1 + 3,3 log n K= 1 + 3,3 log 30 K= 1 + 3,3 x 1.48 K= 1 + 4,9 K= 5,9 = 6
53 P= R
K
P= 36
6= 6 (So, the total class interval of post-test is 6).
Table 16.
Frequency Of Post-Test
No. students‟ score Frequency Percentage
1 84-89 5 students 16,67 %
2 78-83 10 students 33,34 %
3 72-77 6 students 20 %
4 66-71 4 students 13,34 %
5 60-65 3 students 10 %
6 54-59 2 students 6,67 %
Total 30 students 100%
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that for score 54-59, the total of students was 2 students. The students that included for score 60-65 was 3 students. Then, the students that included for score 66-71 was 4 students. Next, the students that included for score 72-77 was 6 students. Last but not least, the students that included for score 78-83 was 10 students. The last, the students that included for score 84-89 was 5 students.
54 B. Hypothesis Testing
After applying rote learning strategy, the researcher analyzed the data by using t-test in order to prove whether there is a positive and significant influence of phonetics mastery on the students‟ speaking performance at the eleventh graders of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro in academic 2017/2018, as follow (Ha) is accepted, if there is a positive and significant The Influence Of Different Phonetics Between English And Indonesian Languages On The Students Speaking Performance At The Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018. And (Ho) is rejected, if there is no a positive and significant The Influence Of Different Phonetics Between English And Indonesian Languages On The Students Speaking Performance At The Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018.
1. Putting the data into the formula Chi-Square (x2) The Formulation of Chi-Square as follow:
x2= Σ[𝑓𝑜 −𝑓𝑒 )2
𝑓𝑒 ]
0 2 4 6 8 10
84-89 78-83 72-77 66-71 60-65 54-59 5
10
6
4 3
2 16,670% 20% 33,340% 10% 10,000% 6,670%
Total Percentage
55
Table 17.
The Contingency Table of the Expected Frequency at the Result of Students’ Speaking Performance in Pre-Test and Post-Test.
Variable
Category
Total
High Fair Low
Pre-Test
1 3
2 14
3 13
Rn= 30
Post-Test
4 15
5 10
6 5
Rn=30
Total Cn= 18 Cn= 24 Cn= 18 N= 60
Hypothesis testing by using Chi-Square analysed as follow:
Table 18.
Testing of the Data Cell Fo Fe= 𝐶𝑛 𝑥 𝑅𝑛
𝑁 Fo-Fe (Fo-Fe)2 (Fo−Fe)2 𝐹𝑒
1 3 18 𝑥 30
60 =9 -6 36 4
2 14 24𝑥 30
60 =12 2 4 0.33
3 13 18 𝑥30
60 =9 4 16 1,78
4 15 18 𝑥 30
60 =9 6 36 4
5 10 24𝑥 30
60 =12 -2 4 0.33
6 5 18 𝑥 30
60 =9 -4 16 1,78
Total
x2=Σ[𝑓𝑜 −𝑓𝑒 )2
𝑓𝑒 ]
= 12,22
56
Furthermore, put the data into formula of Chi Square it can be calculated by using the formula as follows:
x2= Σ[fo −fe)2
fe ] x2= 36
9+4
12+16
9+36
9+4
12+16
9= 12,22
From the data above, the value of chi square was 12,22. Then, know the critical value of of the chi-square the researcher firstly counted df , it was degree of freedom. The formulation of df is:
df= (c-1)(r-1)
Note: Df= degree of freedom C= cell
R= row df= (c-1)(r-1) df= (3-1)(2-1)= 2
The degree of freedom for level of significant 5% for df 2 is 5.991 and forlevel of significant 1%is 9.210, it means that fobserved is higher than ftable. It can be written as 5.991<12,22>9.210. . fobserved was higher than ftable
(5.991) in 5% and (9.210) in 1%. Can be infered that (Ha) is accepted and (Ho) is rejected. It means there a positive significant influence of different phonetics between English and Indonesian languages on the students speaking performance at the eighth graders of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro in the academic year of 2017/2018.
57
2. Preparing the table by using t-test formulation as follows:
Table 19.
The List of Pre-Test and Post-Test Result No Pre-
Test
Post- Test
D D2
1 73 89 16 256
2 30 70 40 1600
3 34 61 27 729
4 54 72 18 324
5 71 85 14 196
6 34 80 46 2116
7 55 80 25 625
8 30 74 44 1936
9 39 83 44 1936
10 22 54 32 1024
11 56 83 27 729
12 57 85 28 784
13 34 74 40 1600
14 57 80 23 529
15 35 82 47 2209
16 49 72 23 529
17 49 70 21 441
18 49 72 23 529
19 29 60 31 961
20 49 69 20 400
21 51 80 29 841
22 22 54 32 1024
23 38 81 43 1849
24 57 80 23 529
25 34 74 40 1600
26 57 80 23 529
27 69 87 18 324
28 54 85 31 961
29 49 70 21 441
30 34 60 26 676
58
ΣD = 875 ΣD2 = 28227 𝐷
29,167
The average of D = (875 : 30) = 29,167
1. Putting the data above into the formula t-test research design in order to get “tobserved”. The formulation of t-test below:
t = D
D 2−( D )2 N N (N −1)
t = 29,167
28227 −(875 )2 30 30 (30 −1)
t= 29,167
28227 −25520 ,833 30(29 )
t= 29,167
27 06 ,1667 870
𝑡 = 29,167 3,1105
𝑡 = 29,167
1,764 = 16,537
Moreover, after putting the data into forulation of the “t observed” is 16,537. to know the critical value t-test “ttable”, the researcher firstly counted df. The formulation of df as follow:
df = N-1 df =30-1= 29
59
Furthermore, the reseacher demonstrated the data which was analyzed by using t-test in SPSS in the table below.
Table 20
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
pretest 30 22 73 45.70 13.958
posttest 30 54 89 74.87 9.598
Valid N (listwise) 30
The table above demonstrated that the total sample of pre-test was 30 with the minimum value was 22 and maximum value was 73, its mean of pre-test was 45,70 with the standard deviation was 13,958. Meanwhile, the total sample of post-test was 30 with the minimum value was 54 and maximum value was 89, its mean of post-test was 74,87 with the standard deviation was 9,598.
Moreover, the table below illustrated the result of the calculation of t- test in SPSS.
Table 21.
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
t df
Sig. (2- tailed) Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error Mean
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 pretest -
posttest 29.167 9.660 1.764 32.774 25.560 16.537 29 .000
The table above illustrated that the mean of pre-test and post-test result was 29.167 and its standard deviation was 9.660 with standard error
60
mean was 1.764, tobserved was 16.537 with degree of freedom was 29 to confidence interval of the difference 95%.
After considering the t-test table by using df 29. So, it can be found that:
Table 22.
Critical Value of ttable
Level of Significant 5% 1%
df 29 1.699 2.462
1. The critical value of t-test (ttable) for the 5% level is 1.699 2. The critical value of t- test (ttable) for the 1% level is 2.462
From all the data analysis above, it canbe found that:
a. “tobserved” = 16,537
b. “ttable” level of significant 5% = 1.699
c. “ttable” level of significant 1 % = 2.462
It means that” tobserved” higher than “ttable” or it can be written as 1.699<16,537>2.462. It means that from the value above there was any positive and significant The Influence Of Different Phonetics Between English And Indonesian Languages On The Students Speaking Performance At The Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018.. It can be seen from the result of the students‟ pre-test and post-test.
- If tobserved > ttable, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected.
- If tobserved < ttable, Ha is rejected and Ho is accepted.
61
The researcher has formulated the alternative Hypothesis (Ha) such as:
“There is a positive and significant The Influence Of Different Phonetics Between English And Indonesian Languages On The Students Speaking Performance At The Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018.”.
Finally, the data confirmed that” tobserved” = 16,537 was higher than
“ttable” level of signficant 5% = 1.699 and “ttable” level of significant 1 % = 2.462. Therefore, it can be concluded that Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected.
It means that there was a positive and significant The Influence Of Different Phonetics Between English And Indonesian Languages On The Students Speaking Performance At The Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018.
C. Discussion
Speaking is one of the skills to be mastered by students in learning English beside listening, reading, and writing. Every student has to study speaking when they study English because in speaking, they have to able to pronounce the word in English..
That is very important to analyze the problems in the overall pronunciation. For example, there are words spelled almost similarly such as study in English and studi in Indonesian language. A particular sound which does not exist in the native language can therefore pose a difficulty for the foreign language learners to produce or sometimes try to substitute
62
those sounds with similar ones in their mother tongue. The study of speech sounds is called as Phonetics.
Before conducting the research, the resercher gave pre-test in order to find outte students‟ level on speaking performance before treatment. The result sowed that te highets score was 73 and the lowest score was 22 with the average was 46. After finishing te treatment, the researcher gave post- test. The result showed that the highest score was 89 and the lowest score was 54 with the average was 75.
The result indicated that the students‟ speaking performance improved after know about different phonetics. It was proved by the mean score of pre-test that improve from 46 up to 74 after treatment.
The researcher has formulated the Alternative Hypothesis (Hi) and Null Hypothesis (Ho) as follows:
a. Ha: There is a positive and significant influence of “Different Phonetics Between English And Indonesian Languages On The Students Speaking Performance At The Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018.”
b. Ho: There is no positive and significant influence of “Different Phonetics Between English And Indonesian Languages On The Students Speaking Performance At The Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018.”
After Ha and Ho were formulated the writer consulted fobservation to ftable as follows:
63
- If = Fo > Ft, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected.
- If = Fo < Ft, Ha is rejected and Ho is accepted.
Furthermore, the researcher compare that fo and ft with the formulation 5.991<12,22>9.210 in 5% and 1% there have significant influence. It explain that Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected. In addition, from comparison of t-test, it was gain that at the significant level of 1% and 5%
tobserved was higher than ttable that was 1.699<16,537>2.462, it means that the hypothesis proposed by the researcher was accepted.
The researcher used phonetics to train the students speaking performance. The students‟ score improved because the students‟ had trainned with phonetics. Phonetics is advisable for the student learning language, especially foreign language. It can help them to know and be aware of what's going in their mouth and at the same time they can also identify and correct any pronunciation mistake made by themselves and others.
D. Limitation
This research was conducted at the Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018 class XI TKJ 1. The choice of subject is speaking and the subject of the research was 30 students. So, the result was limited only to this class and this research can not be generalized. If this research was doing in different place, students, academic year possibility the result of the result of the research will be different also.
64 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the previous discussion and the result of research, the researcher concludes as follows:
According the data analysis, the researcher can conclude that Alterntive Hypothesis (Ha) which explains “there is a positive and significant The Influence Of Different Phonetics Between EnglishAnd Indonesian Languages On The Students Speaking Performance At The Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018 is accepted.
The result of data analysis about The Influence Of Different Phonetics Between English And Indonesian Languages On The Students Speaking Performance At The Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018 as follows; “fobserved was higher than ftable
(5.991) in 5% and (9.210) in 1 %. Can be infered that (Ha) is accepted and (Ho) is rejected. It can be proved that there is a positive and significant The Influence Of Different Phonetics Between English And Indonesian Languages On The Students Speaking Performance At The Eleventh Graders Of SMK Muhammadiyah 2 Metro In The Academic Year Of 2017/2018.
65
T he researcher used phonetics to train the students speaking performance. The students‟ score improved because the students‟ had trainned with phonetics. Phonetics is advisable for the student learning language, especially foreign language. It can help them to know and be aware of what's going in their mouth and at the same time they can also identify and correct any pronunciation mistake made by themselves and others. So, the study is very appropriae to be applied in the learning activity because through this material could improve the students‟
speaking performance.
B. Suggestions
1. For the English teachers
The teachers are suggested to support and practice the students‟
speaking performance, the teacher can apply phonetics as an alternative learning materials basically Phonetics toward teaching speaking.
2. For the students
The students are suggested to develop their speaking performance by mastering phonetics especially in learning English especially in the pronounciation and articulation.
3. For the Headmaster as a material consideration in development for teachers, especially teachers of English.